Call it what you want -- anti-gay or religious rights -- but if Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signs a controversial bill, you might not be calling Arizona the home of the 2015 Super Bowl.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, S.B. 1062, is the current controversy du jour out of Arizona, and the National Football League is with the opposition.

“Our policies emphasize tolerance and inclusiveness and prohibit discrimination based on age, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation or any other improper standard,” NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told USA Today. “We are following the issue in Arizona and will continue to do so should the bill be signed into law, but will decline further comment at this time.”

Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!
The Arizona Super Bowl Host committee released a statement saying it disagreed with the bill and its impact on Arizona’s economy.

“On that matter we have heard loud and clear from our various stakeholders that adoption of this legislation would not only run contrary to that goal but deal a significant blow to the state's economic growth potential,” a committee spokesperson said. “We do not support this legislation.”

Arizona is currently slated to host the 2015 Super Bowl at Glendale’s University of Phoenix Stadium.

Opponents of the bill contend that it will allow Arizona businesses to refuse service to homosexual customers.

But, as with most bills in Congress, the attack ads have little to do with the actual legislation.

Proponents of the bill claim that no, businesses will not have carte blanche to refuse service to anyone they disagree with based on religious grounds.

Specifically, proponents claim that there is nothing in Arizona’s current laws that prevent businesses from discriminating against anyone — and yet, strangely enough, discrimination isn’t happening.

Apparently, businesses in Arizona have wanted to discriminate but have just been waiting for a bill to allow them to do so — which this bill does not. Also, what business would quietly wait to discriminate?

“Business owners do not want to deny service to gays,” the Christian Post wrote. “This is not because they fear government sanction. Rather, it is because: 1) Their religious, ethical or moral beliefs tell them it is wrong to deny service; and/or, 2) the profit motive — turning away customers is no way to run a business.”

This is actually a great way to settle this without even involving federal law. Let Arizona feel the brunt of enacting discriminatory law. Money talks, bullshit walks.

No they're trying to put pressure on politically as in a political boycott. That's not the same as someone in the market voting with their feet because they were not serviced adequately or denied service because of some gender, race or sexual preference.

Arizona takes a controversial stand, NFL weighs the impact on its business and makes a business decision. Arizona feels the economic heat.

The tide of public opinion has turned, especially among young people who the NFL most wants to court.

No, this is a political statement to force someone to bend to your stands politically. Free market is about products, and services -- not getting others to bend to your political will or you won't buy.

No they're trying to put pressure on politically as in a political boycott. That's not the same as someone in the market voting with their feet because they were not serviced adequately or denied service because of some gender, race or sexual preference.

It doesn't have to be the same. Those businesses are deciding what to do with their money.

__________________

"As I walked out the door toward the gate that would lead to my freedom, I knew if I didn't leave my bitterness and hatred behind I'd still be in prison."

No, this is a political statement to force someone to bend to your stands politically. Free market is about products, and services -- not getting others to bend to your political will or you won't buy.

Looks like the nfl is deciding who they will or won't do business with in a free market.

No they're trying to put pressure on politically as in a political boycott. That's not the same as someone in the market voting with their feet because they were not serviced adequately or denied service because of some gender, race or sexual preference.

You think that the NFL is a political organization?

__________________I think the young people enjoy it when I "get down," verbally, don't you?

Another recent political move by the NFL was pulling that gun-rights commercial from the SB. So that's three political moves now. They're getting too political and PC. They'd be better off being neutral.

There was another one that O'Reilly chewed them out on but they relented. Forget what it was.